User talk:Sandstein

Welcome to my talk page!

Please place new messages at the bottom of this page, or click here to start a new discussion, which will automatically be at the bottom. I will respond to comments here, unless you request otherwise. Please read the following helpful hints, as well as our talk page guidelines before posting:

• Please add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your message. This will create an identifying signature and timestamp.

• Do you have a question about arbitration enforcement? Please read my FAQ at User:Sandstein/AE.

• If you're here to inform me of a mistake I made while on administrative duty, please indicate which article is concerned by enclosing the title of the article in two sets of square brackets: [[example article]].

• If you are looking for my talk page's previous contents, they are in the archives.

Start a new talk topic

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Eaters and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khorne

Eight and six different comments posted in the respective discussions are hardly "boilerplate", especially when the nominations are nearly word for word in nature as they were across several AfDs and a number of the deletes are themselves virtual copy and pastes across multiple AfDs. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, there are only so many ways one can say "non-notable subject, has not received significant coverage in reliable sources". That's acceptable boilerplate, if it's true. But if such issues are raised, the only appropriate response is a specific one: "Yes, it's notable because there's substantial coverage in X Magazine (link), Y Newspaper (link) and Z Review (link), all of which I've now added to the article." Boilerplate responses to such issues are unhelpful and will not be taken seriously, at least not by me. That's even more the case if the boilerplate responses represent a viewpoint that is very strongly divergent from community consensus as represented in guidelines such as WP:N. AfD is not the place to change guidelines; the respective talk page is. Frankly, if you continue to contribute to AfDs in the way you presently do, you're more likely than not to face sanctions at some point. And you're going to change the opinion of very few people in the process.  Sandstein  21:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Some in those discussions seem to ignore even when coverage in reliable sources are presented to them, which is why I find so many of these nominations and "per nom", "nnotable" comments unhelpful and why it's hard to take them seriously. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

That's true. I do attempt to give less weight to comments that do not address substantial, specific, policy-based arguments made in favour of the opposite outcome. That would be a good reason to make such arguments.  Sandstein  21:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

When I see repetitiously worded nominations, especially when I have seen those doing the nominations make such comments elsewhere as this or this (scroll down further on this userpage for another gem of a section heading), it just diminishes my impression of the validity of these nominations, i.e. when I see them or delete comments from those who never argue to keep and in fact have expressed in some cases that they never would (yes, I predominately argue to keep, but I have probably nominated or argued to delete at least 50 times by now). --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

My advice is to address each nomination not on the perceived merits of the nominator, but on its own merits: are the arguments for deletion, viewed in the light of community consensus as established in policies and guidelines, valid? If I see ten articles that are copyright violations, it's appropriate to nominate them for deletion with the rationale "Copyright violation from [link]." That's not repetitious wording, but appropriate brevity. Either way, even if you think a nomination or a comment is unhelpful, the appropriate response is not a patently unhelpful comment of your own. That's WP:POINT territory. I'd rather you'd make a specific, policy-based comment. It might make the difference in an AfD, and it might instruct the other side.  Sandstein  22:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Copywright violations, yes, I can understand, but some of these fiction articles vary quite wildly in their quality and potential, which is why so many copy and paste nominations are a concern as is when there are a number of deletes posted by those who are unwilling (as they have outright said) to switch their stances even if sources are found. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, nominations should be evaluated on their individual merits, and boilerplate comments should be countered by strong arguments. That's a much better approach to solving these perceived problems than posting boilerplate comments of one's own.  Sandstein  23:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but I hope that admins will take note of accounts like those I mentioned above who will tendentiously ignore even evidence that does demonstrate notability as they have outright stated, their focus is on removing the articles, not considering whether or not they can be saved. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• Update: The nominator has just been determined by a checkuser to be a likely ban evading sock account. Could you please relist or close as no consensus? In neither of the above was there a "clear consensus". And we absolutely should not humor ban evading, single purpose socks. Therefore, I strongly urge you to either close as no consensus and let an untainted discussion occur or at least relist striking the sock account's comments or linking to the checkuser. Whether you feel the articles should be deleted or I think they should be kept, we absolutely cannot be okay with questionable nominations made by block evading accounts that should not have been making the nomination in the first place. Besides, don't we usually speedy close such discussions if it's apparent that it was made by a sock account? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not impressed by that checkuser. "likely" isn't defined and doesn't offer me any good reason to treat alle any differently than before it was filed. Protonk (talk) 20:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you please provide a link to that checkuser request, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles?  Sandstein  21:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

rfcu for fred day. SSP for allemantando. Protonk (talk) 21:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Allemandtando (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is not currently blocked. Even if he were to be blocked as a banned editor later, I would decline to overturn the AfDs, because his edits did not decisively influence the AfDs, and I have no reason to believe that an AfD started by someone else would have reached a different result.  Sandstein  21:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Just as a quick update, JzG has indeed blocked the account in question after Lar did his own checkuser and posted in agreement with the first results. By the way, although I argued to keep, I think your close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reptilian humanoids in fiction (2nd nomination) was reasonable. Also, could you userfy Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emperor's Children? In addition to the now blocked sock account's participation, another in that discussion is being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:T-rex trolling AfD. Finally, the term itself seems a legitimate search term given it's only a "the" away from The Emperor's Children. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there any reason why you want Emperor's Children userfied? You may certainly create a redirect to The Emperor's Children in that place.  Sandstein  07:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I would like to work on it in userpace as possible disambiguation purposes when I have some time. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

This does not require restoration. For a dab page, you only need the lead: In the fictional universe of Warhammer 40,000, the Emperor's Children are a legion of Chaos Space Marines that worship the Chaos god Slaanesh.  Sandstein  19:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

If we need the lead, then we need to restore per the GFDL, i.e. to attribute whoever wrote that lead. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

wisdombuddha

I saw your message in the user talk page of someone that I also wrote to. You were asking about wisdombuddha's unblock request.

The big omission that I see is that there is no description of what edits are objectionable. I looked at two edits at random and they seem perfectly acceptable, though I am not an expert in the field. Have you examined this more than me?

Chergles (talk) 22:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I saw another edit that seems to be POV pushing. So 2 ok, 1 not. Chergles (talk) 22:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

If you look, most of my edits improved the articles. I cleaned up the references, added new content, and even got it protected when a bunch of ip vandalism occurred. I did have some disagreements with another editor, but I tried to come to an agreement. I have not edited for over a month now so show that I am willing to cooperate. Thank you, WB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.37.51 (talk) 22:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

See my comment in the section above; you would need to make this proposal to the blocking administrator.  Sandstein  11:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Sandstein, I am a busy person but I also know how mean Wikipedia can appear to be if one is wrongly blocked. I am willing to devote some time to personally work with this person IF he also agrees. I would then ask him to edit slowly at first. If you don't want that, then something shorter than an indefinite block encourages cooperation. Indefinite blocks discourage cooperation because it's no different from the electric chair or beheading, wikipedia-style. Chergles (talk) 22:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Chergles, contact Blnguyen about this. He's the one who first brought my attention to the POV pushing on the Dorje Shugden. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 16:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Roblox Redo?

Hi. Ive been wondering some things lately after I wanted to start the Roblox Article again.

Why is it that the many online game pages I looked at all rely on themselfs, while Roblox was deleted for no 3rd-party info?

And hows these for 3rd party info? Is it good? The 2nd one might not be good, but I think the first one is.

[1] [2]

P.S: I know your not supposed to base your arguements on why other articles exist, but I am just a bit mad.

Edit: Also, I cant make a new one. There is a block in place. So now this becomes a request for an Un-Block.

--Briguy9876 (talk) 22:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The first source is indeed good, the second is not reliable. To have the protection lifted, proceed as follows: Create a well-written, well-sourced draft article at User:Briguy9876/Roblox. Then, add an unprotection request to WP:RPP and request that the title be unprotected, making reference to your draft article. If the request is then declined, you may appeal this to WP:DRV.  Sandstein  11:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Hopefully I can get the article back up. Then I might be able to get some more sources --Briguy9876 (talk) 17:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

If you dont mind, how does this source look to you?

[3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Briguy9876 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Problematic editor

Can you please review the edits of Funguy06 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) -- he is disruptively (and systematically) adding people to an invalid category and not responding to messages on his talk page. JBsupreme (talk)

Already blocked, it seems.  Sandstein  18:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The Mana World - thank you!

Just a quick note to thank you for closing the AFD of The Mana World as delete - I had the unfortunate fear that it was going to be kept due to the weight of voices claiming that nomination for an award, a large userbase etc actually meant passing WP:Web (which was never actually mentioned in the AFD, strangely enough). Good to see common sense does still prevail here, for that I thank you. Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 23:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome.  Sandstein  06:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

While I understand that the conclusion was that The Mana World is not notable enough to be on Wikipedia now, did the article at least get archived somewhere so that it can be restored when we ARE notable? For example when a magazine review would be found or made? --Bjørn (talk) 09:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

In principle, it can be undeleted. The best way to go about this would be to write a brief article in userspace that establishes notability (with links to the required coverage in reliable sources) and then to request its move to mainspace at WP:DRV. The previous article can then be undeleted and made accessible through the "history" function. However, people associated with the subject should not do this; see WP:COI.  Sandstein  09:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Wow, I can't believe I'm about to say this .. but what kind (~bad words and insults deleted by editor at the last moment~) of use of WP:CONSENSUS is the deletion of this article? It was very obvious that consensus to delete was not reached, and as such the article should remain (for now). Hundreds of thousands of computers with the game installed is notability. Please reverse this decision that was obviously contrary to Wikipedia standards. You know, I knew nothing about this "game" before I found the AfD and even the minimal research that I did easily showed notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwilkins (talk • contribs) 11:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Your request for me to reexamine and reverse Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Mana World is declined, because you do not indicate how, exactly, my closure of that AfD was in conflict with applicable policies or guidelines. A mere assertion of notability is not sufficient to show that the AfD was closed in error. Any arguments to that effect should have been made in the AfD itself. You may appeal the closure of the AfD to deletion review.  Sandstein  11:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, it wasn't a request. It was a statement ... I'm doubting you even placed a cursory glance at the AfD. You certainly did not have a consensus to delete - even under creative accounting rules. Plus, if you used a "rule" that was not noted on the AfD as reason to delete, then you were required to add that reason to the AfD, and not close the AfD yourself, as you effectively entered new evidence. BMW(drive) 17:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• You are incorrect on both counts.  Sandstein  17:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
• Consensus was reached - verification of WP:WEB failed, and nobody on either side (myself included admittedly) mentioned that despite it being the dominant notability guideline - including for open source projects. Nomination for an award does not count, it must have been won. Also, the fact that WP:Web was not cited in the AFD is due to ignorance or laziness on the part of the contributors (again I do not exempt myself from criticism) and neither of those is due cause to simply ignore WP:Web. Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 17:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Have you ever actually READ WP:WEB? "Wikipedia should avoid articles about web sites...". Well, The Mana World is not a website, it's an computer application resident on the most common releases of Linux, just like Inkball appears on Microsoft Vista - and Vista has far less distribution around the world than those versions of Linux. Therefore, WP:WEB cannot be used in this specific application. Um, next? BMW(drive) 17:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for The Mana World

An editor has asked for a deletion review of The Mana World. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. BMW(drive) 10:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

South Asia

Hi Admins Tiptoety and Sandstein,

I want to thank Tiptoety for affirming that my edits were non-vandalism. BTW, if possible could you please urge user:Thegreyanomaly to show me ASAP, in black and white, which "chunk of reference" were removed(not "move") by me.

I would like to show you that user:Thegreyanomaly repeatedly made false accusations on me, here are the examples:

• "IP vandal....It didn't quite read like this"[4]

(He senselessly removed the citation I added[5] and made the above nonsense comment, I later showed and let him read the exact quote from M. Goldstein account[6], I never stop him from adding more text from the same book. For example, I clearly told him "I raise no question on your edits"[7])

• "(removing) tonne of citation", and

• "removing large chunks of references"[8]

After I urged him[9][10] to point it out what chunk/tonnes did he refer to, until this moment(19 July 2008) the user still shows no evidence/weblink/screenshot how I removed "tonnes of citations"

Moreover, I can read even arrogant, and of course sophomoric, comment like this:

• "I am a CAL student"[11]

Is he/she discrminating anon users which are not CAL students? I am not sure

On South Asia's talk page where this user failed to respond, I have repeatedly warned that all edits shall come with citation per WP:CITE [12], and further urged more editors to come to this messy South Asia. I have shown you above (or here) how this user removed other's citation while hypocritically accusing other editor(s) as vandals "per Wikipedia rules", now it is his/her turn to show me how I remove chunk of reference.

I myself all along edit wikipedia per WP:CITE, WP:BOLD and WP:COOL. Please kindly review my case and provide assistance in my future edits on wikipedia articles including South Asia. Have a nice day! 219.73.86.234 (talk) 03:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there a specific administrator action that you would like me to take?  Sandstein  09:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

USS Enterprise (BLDG 7115)

With respect to the article about USS Enterprise (BLDG 7115), I noticed that you made the page a redirect to Naval Station Great Lakes, but did not then merge the articles. Doesn't this amount to a type of deletion? Should the content therefore be restored until it is moved to Naval Station Great Lakes?

On a related note, another editor changed the redirect to United States Navy Boot Camp, I suggest that the content still be merged to Naval Station Great Lakes since that is the facility where both the building and boot camp are located. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 15:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The redirect was a temporary measure and is not a type of deletion, because the content remains available through the article history. It is up to the community of editors to determine the target and scope of the merger and then to carry the merger out, as described on WP:MERGE.  Sandstein  15:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

But the merger guidelines say that the first thing you do is copy the contents of the page being merged to the destination page of the merger, then you change the source page to a redirect. The way you did it the information is just gone to the average user. Only an advanced use, or an editor would think to check the page history for essentially hidden information.

I also noticed that the guidelines say anyone can do this, but I thought only an admin could do it properly so that the page histories are also merged. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 02:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I assume the users who are interested in the topic and want to perform the merger are those who were involved in the AfD and are thus able to find the article history and the merger guidelines in order to perform the merger from history, as it appears you were. An admin is indeed not needed to perform a merger; see the section entitled "Full-content paste merger" in WP:MERGE.  Sandstein  06:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

As I understand the guidelines, page blanking (to a redirect) is only supposed to come after the merge not before. Also, I read your edit summary as implying that you were going to do the complete merge. I did not make any changes because I did not want to complicate what I thought you were in the middle of doing, but it was taking a long time, hence my comments here. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 09:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been more clear. Do go ahead with the merge.  Sandstein  09:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Historical pederastic couples

If you're not already aware of this, you may want to look at this discussion:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Unusual action by admin FCYTravis

about FCYTravis's deletion of Historical pederastic couples following your closure of the AfD.
--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Historical pederastic couples

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Historical pederastic couples. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Sandstein - this was a tricky close and I agree you had no other option, but I figured 24 out of 000s was pretty small - this should get a clear consensus one way or the other and needs more eyes on it. It is a much more serious debate than the usual AfD...sorry Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Numeridex Deletion

Please, I respectfully request that you reconsider undeletion of the Numeridex article. The intention in creating the article on Numeridex was certainly not to promote the products sold by the company. If it appeared that way, I, the author, certainly apologize. I have taken the following steps to correct the situation: First, I deleted most of the listings naming the products sold by the company. Second, included a verifiable notable classification of Numeridex as one of the fastest private growing companies in America. Third: added some additional independent links to verify the above. Numeridex, although a small company, I believe has made a contribution to computer related technologies, especially by the authoring and publication of two desktop guides now added to the article in reference. I will certainly welcome and implement any additional suggestions to improve this article. Thank you for your consideration.--Colmirage (talk) 00:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello. The article Numeridex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was deleted as a consequence of the following deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Numeridex. Under deletion policy, I may not unilaterally restore it. To have it restored, you have two options:

• If you think that a procedural error was made in closing the discussion, you may appeal for the reversal of the closure at deletion review using the procedure outlined there. Note, though, that just disagreeing with the outcome is not sufficient grounds for an appeal, and in the normal course of business, most appeals are declined.

• If you think that a new version of the article that addresses the concerns raised in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Numeridex can be written, please do so in your user space, e.g. at User:Colmirage/Numeridex. Once you are done, you may move it back to "main space" at Numeridex using the "move" function. However, if the new article does not in fact address the concerns raised in the deletion discussion, it may be speedily deleted by an administrator. I you do not want to take this risk, you may first want to ask the community of editors for confirmation that the new article may indeed be moved to main space. You may make such a request by opening a deletion review and posing a question such as the following:

"I have written a new version of the deleted article Numeridex at User:Colmirage/Numeridex. I believe that this new version addresses the concerns raised in the deletion discussion because (insert your reason here). I'd like to have confirmation that I may restore this new version of the article to main space."

Thank you for your understanding. Additionally, please note that if you are associated with Numeridex, you should not write an article on it due to our conflict of interest policy.  Sandstein  06:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 21 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article insolvency law of Switzerland, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Wizardman 00:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Gulmammad

User:Gulmammad is asking for an unblock, and has pointed out that the diffs cited in the WP:AE discussion don't actually add up. I've checked them and he is correct about that. -- Ned Scott 01:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Review: Edvarda Aslaksen Braanaas

Dear Sir, I kindly ask you to review the deletion for the (Norwegian artist) article entry of: Edvarda Aslaksen Braanaas. I have collected many more information sources which includes magazine articles, reviews and links to various membership organizations that she is a member of. (As listed below.) I would like to have another review of these together with the original already mentioned sources (from the original article). There is also a number of Blogs (see google search) that mentions/reviews her work, but these I have not added to the list above, although they should be eligible references according to WP:N. In addition I would like to call your attention that some of the criteria used to remove the article were neither satisfied by a number of other Norwegian and Swedish artists on the English, Norwegian and Swedish wikipages... (If you like a list of a few of these, I can add these separately upon request.)

---

Member of these organizations:

---

Kunstnernes informasjonskontor (KIK) - (Membership organisation) http://www.kik.no/ http://www.kik.no/person.jsp?id=T11184819

Landsforeningen Norske Malere (LNM) - (Membership organisation) http://www.lnm.no/

Unge Kunstneres Samfund (UKS) - (Membership organisation) http://www.uks.no/

---

Additional Relevant Articles and material

---

Article in "Fine Art" magazine : http://www.fineart.no/kunstner/779/Braanaas,%20Edvarda

Collaborative Exhibition by "Kunst på Arbeidsplassen", ([NO] Tr. "Art in the workplace"): http://www.kpa.no/utstilling_mer.asp?AId=313

Culturenet (The Ministry of Culture and Church Affairs): http://www.arkivnett.kulturnett.no/personer/person.jsp?id=T11184819&lang=en

Maddox Arts: http://www.maddoxarts.net/works/viewworkart.php?id=108

Norway Culture (Collaborative Exhibition Reference to "Viva Lolita" at Maddox Arts): http://www.norway.org.uk/culture/contemporaryart/edvardabraanaas.htm

"Sound Art" (Collaborative art and music project ny Toni Castells): http://www.tonicastells.com/BuyMusicGetArt.html

Article in "Kunst for Alle" art magazine (2008,No.2): http://www.kunstforalle.no/redaksjonelt.asp?meny=6,173,324&act=read&RecNo=1946

Mentioned in "Artreview" magazine: "Viva Lolita" (May, 2008) http://www.artreview.com/magazine http://edvarda.no/_/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/vl_reviewssmall-1.jpg

---

I hope you can help me in this regard or in the worst case give some specific details on how I can improve that article to make it suitable for wikipedia. Best Regards,
--Jahibadkaret (talk) 00:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The article Edvarda Aslaksen Braanaas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was deleted as a consequence of the following deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edvarda Aslaksen Braanaas. Under deletion policy, I may not unilaterally restore it. To have it restored, you have two options:

• If you think that a procedural error was made in closing the discussion, you may appeal for the reversal of the closure at deletion review using the procedure outlined there. Note, though, that just disagreeing with the outcome is not sufficient grounds for an appeal, and in the normal course of business, most appeals are declined.

• If you think that a new version of the article that addresses the concerns raised in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edvarda Aslaksen Braanaas can be written, please do so in your user space, e.g. at User:Jahibadkaret/Edvarda Aslaksen Braanaas. Once you are done, you may move it back to "main space" at Edvarda Aslaksen Braanaas using the "move" function. However, if the new article does not in fact address the concerns raised in the deletion discussion, it may be speedily deleted by an administrator. I you do not want to take this risk, you may first want to ask the community of editors for confirmation that the new article may indeed be moved to main space. You may make such a request by opening a deletion review and posing a question such as the following:

"I have written a new version of the deleted article Edvarda Aslaksen Braanaas at User:Jahibadkaret/Edvarda Aslaksen Braanaas. I believe that this new version addresses the concerns raised in the deletion discussion because (insert your reason here). I'd like to have confirmation that I may restore this new version of the article to main space."

Thank you for your understanding.  Sandstein  06:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I have started another user space article taking all this into consideration. I will then ask the admins for suggestions. However, I would appreciate to have a copy of the last version of the article before it was deleted. That would help me on the way. Could you add it to my user space under another name? (Or put it in a place where I can copy it?)

--Jahibadkaret (talk) 00:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Y Done. I have merged the history of the old deleted article with your new draft article. You can access the old article through the article history of your draft article by clicking on one of the dates of the old revisions.  Sandstein  06:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Excellent! Thank you. No, I am not her, and I only know her by sight. But I like her stuff and compared to some other Norwegian contemporary artists already on wikipedia (EN), I find her equally qualified to be here, to say the least... --Jahibadkaret (talk) 01:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for Unblock: Dubcrazy

Yes, he is one of my friends. I was not online when he made the edit, so I didn't even know about this situation until just right now. I think he deserves a second chance. Scholastic Opponent (talk) 04:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Palestra.net The College Network

I recently set up a Wikipedia page for Palestra.net The College Network. When I went to search for it, it was deleted on the Wikipedia site. The page was not an advertisement of any sort, and simply explained the background of the company. Please email me at barga.sarah@gmail.com to explain to me the protocol so that it does not get deleted again.

Best Regards,

Sarah Barga —Preceding unsigned comment added by Palestra (talk • contribs) 17:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Please provide a wikilink to the deleted article, so that I can find it.  Sandstein  18:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is the Link for the Palestra.net Wiki page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestra.net_The_College_Network —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.18.203.11 (talk) 17:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The article was deleted because it did not assert notability, see WP:CSD#A7.  Sandstein  17:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pokémon types (3rd nomination)

Just as a quick note, see for example, this, which is about various "Pokemon types are discussed and their correlation to users in an academic environment." They are discussed here, here, and here. I would be willing to use these and other sources to attempt a revision of the article that would be more based on such secondary sources with out of universe commentary. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Great, but these sources should have been provided in the AfD (and cited inline in the article). They're of little use if they're provided two minutes after the AfD closes. You may, of course, rewrite the article from scratch based on these sources. I assume you are familiar with the relevant procedures; otherwise see User:Sandstein/AFDResponse.  Sandstein  18:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Further evidence of why AfD as currently exists just doesn't work, especially the idea that after five days the discussion on a volunteer project just stops. I looked up those sources this morning with every intention of adding them to the article and then mentioning them in the AfD only to find it deleted when I came to the discussion. Thus, please consider relisting the discussion so we can take these new sources into account. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Every discussion stops somewhere, if only on account of entropy eventually destroying the universe. Looking at your sources, I don't think they would have greatly influenced the outcome. They basically say that Pokémon is a children's game in which the monsters have various types. This is superficial coverage, not enough to make the deleted article verifiable or its subject notable under our current rules. Therefore, I won't relist the discussion.  Sandstein  18:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It's coverage in multiple secondary sources and as such demonstrates notability and can be used for sections indicating reception and coverage in academic sources. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Superficial and hence inadequate coverage.  Sandstein  18:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

That's just not true, considering such sources as this, this, or Blown Away By Shane Gericke, which mentions "Modeled on the Pokemon types so popular with kids, the wallet-size police cards displayed an officer's photograph, career highlights, vital statistics..." Collectively these sources demonstrate potential. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Very well, nothing prevents you from realising this potential by writing an article in userspace and submitting it to DRV for restoration.  Sandstein  18:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

If you want to userfy it, okay, as I'll certainly work on it, but it just seems more effective to restore the article, add the sources, and continue the one discussion than starting on all new discussion at DRV. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Relisting declined for the reasons laid out above. I'm not keen on userfying it either, because your userspace appears to be already full of undeleted cruft that seems to be going nowhere.  Sandstein  19:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Please do not call things "cruft". Also as seen at User talk:Keeper76/Archive 9#User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles.2FCassie_Keller, I do work on my userfied articles eventually.--Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Sir (or ma'am), I will call cruft – and AfD-certified cruft no less! – cruft whenever I bloody well feel like it. I've no objection if another admin bothers to userfy the cruft for you, but my impression is that you are hoarding all that apparently random cruft in userspace for no clear purpose. There is no scarcity of similar cruft for you to work on that is not currently deleted.  Sandstein  21:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, your impressions are of course mistaken, and I am not going to reply further to unconsrtructive and inaccurate comments. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Pokémon types

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Pokémon types. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Khorne

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Khorne. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Your question on Milk's Favorite Cookie's RfA

Sandstein, I'm a bit disappointed by your question at MFC's RfA. It comes off as extremely insulting and accusatory. This is a good faith contributor who has made tens of thousands of contributions, and you're asking him questions to which there is a perfectly reasonable explanation. This diff shows that MFC nominated that article for DYK, very clearly stating that it was authored by another editor, not trying to steal credit in any way. I personally was unaware of a template that was analogous to the standard "which you created or substantially expanded" template for noms, though I was able to find one; but it's not fair to essentially accuse MFC of stealing others' work merely for not knowing the proper template. GlassCobra 01:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, if there is a perfectly reasonable explanation, I would be glad to hear so. Milk's Favorite Cookie has yet to provide it, though. On the same page, there are many of the "which you nominated" templates that would seem to apply in this case, and I would be interested to hear why he has not used these.  Sandstein  06:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Hi. I wanted to bring to your attantion this. Even angles could violate the rules not only me! Cheers, Gülməmməd ^Talk 23:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Protected redirects and Zanpakuto.

I'm just curious, on the AFD for the Soul Reaper and related articles Bount and Hollow, you closed with a protected redirect. Why not do the same for Zanpakuto, since a merge to List of Soul Reapers in Bleach was proposed on the AFD? Again, I am just curious here. Sasuke9031 (talk) 06:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that also crossed my mind, but this "protected redirect" idea is something of a new idea of mine. I don't want to do it on too many AfDs at once before I see how the community reacts to it. Also, judging from the AfD and the article, it appeared to me that the probability of a useful merger coming out of the Zanpakuto article is lower than with the other three articles.  Sandstein  07:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Still, the information about the Shikai and Bankai might be able to go to the Soul Reaper list so that people new to bleach don't go, "Bankai? WTF?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sasuke9031 (talk • contribs) 08:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there any specific, well-sourced information that you think is merge-worthy? If so, I'll restore the history as soon as consensus for such a merger has been demonstrated on the target article talk page.  Sandstein  08:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

If that is the case, then I am afraid we have run into a little snag. See, I would need to actually look at the article in question to see what sourced information would be valid, or if I felt that information could be better sourced, userfy it and work on it a little bit, but I can't, unlike the other articles which you protected, because it was actually deleted, and since I am not an admin (and would not like to have that added pressure at this time) I cannot see it. Sasuke9031 (talk) 09:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Have you tried the Google cache?  Sandstein  09:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. In fact, I am going to link that to mhy user page to get the ball rolling on a potential merge. Thanks a lot. Sasuke9031 (talk) 10:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Lenerd

User:Lenerd is asking for an unblock. I'm trying to figure out what on earth he did to warrant a block (without warning) in the first place, let alone an indef block. There seems to be some miscommunication here. -- Ned Scott 09:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. I have explained my reasons for the block at User talk:Lenerd#You are indefinitely blocked, and at least one administrator has agreed with me. I find it particularly troubling that the blocked editor insists that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the edits that led to his block. Making useful edits is what we expect of every editor; it is not an excuse for a persistent pattern of disruption.  Sandstein  09:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

You can't see the difference between some simple mistakes and a content dispute with vandalism? Finding drive-by admins to agree with blocking users isn't hard, which is why I take the time to check out the unblock request category from time to time. An indef blocking like this, without any warning, is over kill and should be to be undone. -- Ned Scott 23:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Warhammer 40K

Hello,

I've noticed that lately there are a lot of pages about Warhammer40 being deleted...

Might I ask why ? These pages were a great source of information for the many fans of the game.

pages I have noticed :

the Dark Angels Space Marines [13] the Imperial Fists Space Marines [14] the Cadian Imperial Guard [15] the Catachan Jungle Fighters Imperial Guard [16] the Black Legion Chaos Space Marines [17] the World Eaters Chaos Space Marines [18] the Thousand Sons Chaos Space Marines [19] the Emperor's Children Chaos Space Marines [20] the Iron Warriors Chaos Space Marines [21]

the above are all important factions in the game but what shocked me the most was the deletion of probably the two most important characters in the entire game !

The Emperor of Mankind [22] and Warmaster Horus [23]

Also the deletion of nearly every Primarch is very disturbing.

Lion El'Jonson, Fulgrim, Perturabo, Jaghatai Kahn, Rogal Dorn, Konrad Curze/Night Haunter, Sanguinius, Ferrus Manus, Angron, Magnus the Red, Vulkan

and their respective legions as found here [24]

I find these actions very disturbing and would like to have an answer as soon as possible.

regards,

swartsengagger —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swartsengagger (talk • contribs) 20:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Please refer to the individual deletion discussions for these articles to find out why they were deleted. These discussions are available through links in the deletion log, which is displayed in the box appearing in the pages that you have provided links to. To find out how and why pages are deleted in general, please read WP:DP and WP:WWMPD.  Sandstein  20:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

where can i find those deletion logs ?

swartsengagger —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swartsengagger (talk • contribs) 20:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I explained in my comment above how to access the deletion log. You can also access it through Special:Log and entering the article title in the "title" field.  Sandstein  21:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of K2GXT

I would like to know why you decided to delete the article for K2GXT without participating in the afd discussion? This seems like an action without justification, there was active debate on the article and progress was being made to prove notability. KB1LQC (talk) 17:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)